# Rep Skill-Gap Heatmap Template

> A one-page grid that plots every rep against every core competency so you can see, at a glance, exactly where team-wide coaching time will move the needle, instead of guessing from the last few calls you happened to catch.

Free template for sales managers. Topic: [Skills, Competencies & Career Growth](https://www.peerlab.ai/library/topic/skills-competencies-career-growth/). Published by PeerLab in the [Sales Enablement Resource Library](https://www.peerlab.ai/library/). Source: https://www.peerlab.ai/library/rep-skill-gap-heatmap-template/

## How to use it

Score every rep on every competency using the 1-5 scale, then read down each column, the lowest column averages are where your next month of coaching time should go.

## What's inside

- The 1-5 proficiency scale with behavioral definitions for each score
- The ten-competency taxonomy used across the grid
- A blank heatmap grid (reps x 10 competencies, with row/column averages)
- A fully worked example for a 6-person team
- The Priority Flag rule for identifying team-wide gaps
- The Coaching Allocation rule (1:1 vs. team skill sprint vs. framework fix)
- Scoring-source hierarchy, what counts as real evidence
- Refresh-cadence guidance
- A note on when to graduate to the full Skills Matrix

## Purpose
One grid, one glance: which reps are strong where, which competencies are weak team-wide, and where your next month of coaching hours should go. This is a diagnostic tool, not a performance review: treat scores as a coaching input, not a compensation input.

## The Proficiency Scale
Score every cell 1-5 using this scale. Don't average "gut feel": anchor every score to something you actually observed (a call, a deal review, a role-play).

| Score | Label | Definition |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Not Yet Demonstrated | No observed evidence of this skill, or consistently misses the bar in real situations |
| 2 | Developing | Inconsistent: executes with prompting, coaching, or a script in hand |
| 3 | Proficient | Reliably executes independently in standard, expected situations |
| 4 | Advanced | Executes well in complex or non-standard situations; adapts in real time |
| 5 | Expert / Peer-Coachable | Performance strong enough that peers could learn from watching it |

## The Ten Core Competencies
(Swap in your own taxonomy if you've built one, see the *Sales Competency Framework Builder Toolkit*, but these ten cover the full deal lifecycle for most B2B teams.)

1. Prospecting & Pipeline Generation
2. Discovery & Needs Diagnosis
3. Qualification Rigor
4. Value Articulation
5. Objection Navigation
6. Negotiation
7. Deal Control & Closing
8. Stakeholder & Multi-thread Management
9. Account Growth & Expansion
10. Process Discipline & Forecast Accuracy

## The Grid

| Rep | Prospecting | Discovery | Qualification | Value Artic. | Objection Nav. | Negotiation | Deal Control | Stakeholder Mgmt | Account Growth | Process Discipline | Row Avg |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [Rep 1] | | | | | | | | | | | |
| [Rep 2] | | | | | | | | | | | |
| [Rep 3] | | | | | | | | | | | |
| [Rep 4] | | | | | | | | | | | |
| [Rep 5] | | | | | | | | | | | |
| [Rep 6] | | | | | | | | | | | |
| **Column Avg** | | | | | | | | | | | |

## Worked Example (6-person team)

| Rep | Prospecting | Discovery | Qualification | Value Artic. | Objection Nav. | Negotiation | Deal Control | Stakeholder Mgmt | Account Growth | Process Discipline | Row Avg |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dana | 4 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 2.7 |
| Marcus | 2 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3.1 |
| Priya | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2.4 |
| Tomás | 5 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2.3 |
| Wren | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3.5 |
| Ade | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1.7 |
| **Column Avg** | 3.2 | 3.0 | 2.7 | 2.8 | 2.3 | 2.0 | 2.5 | 2.7 | 2.2 | 2.8 | |

Reading this: the team is strongest at Prospecting (3.2) and weakest at Negotiation (2.0) and Account Growth (2.2). Ade is below a 2 on four competencies: a coaching-capacity conversation, not just a training-module conversation.

## Turning the Grid into Action

**Priority Flag rule**, flag a competency for team-wide coaching investment when:
- Column average is below 2.5, OR
- 3+ reps score 2 or below on it, OR
- It's a competency tied to your current strategic push (e.g. you're moving upmarket and Stakeholder Mgmt is soft team-wide)

**Coaching Allocation rule**: once flagged, decide the delivery mode by *how many* reps are affected:
- 1-2 reps below bar → 1:1 coaching (use the *Skill-Based 1:1 Template*)
- 3+ reps below bar → team-wide skill sprint (pick one competency, run it for 2-4 weeks using the *Skill-First Coaching Conversation Guide* + peer examples from your strongest scorer on that competency)
- Whole team below bar on a competency your top performer also scores low on → this isn't a coaching gap, it's a framework or process gap. Check whether the skill is even correctly defined before you coach it.

## Scoring Sources (in order of reliability)
1. Structured call review using the *Call Coaching Observation Scorecard* (most reliable, anchored to specific behavior)
2. Manager live-call observation notes
3. Deal outcomes pattern (e.g. consistently loses at negotiation stage): directional only, confirm with #1 or #2 before scoring
4. Rep self-assessment: useful as a data point, never as the sole score; always calibrate against manager observation

## Refresh Cadence
Re-score quarterly at minimum. Re-score any cell immediately after a coaching intervention closes out, so the heatmap reflects reality, not last quarter's snapshot.

## Heatmap vs. Skills Matrix
This template is a **fast diagnostic view**, built to be re-scored often and read in 30 seconds. For the full system-of-record version (with tenure, role, last-assessed dates, and hiring/succession use cases), use the companion *Team Skills Matrix / Capability Map Template*.